The Horrible Advantage of Going First

[AnCarver]

Something I've noticed as I've slowly wound my way up to level 9 is that is is a big advantage to go first. If two equal players contend on the battlefield, the one who went first will win, baring luck, almost every time. Especially in small maps, in 1v1 games, or in instances where two players are put in close proximity to one another in the early few turns, this advantage can make it extremely frustrating to go after your opponent.

For example, most randomly generated maps are not short of chokepoints. I have seen a number of games where, forced to place in a less that desirable location by the first two players, the third player rushes to claim as much territory as possible, only to be shut down by whichever other player they head towards. Similarly, going before nearby opponents in large multiplayer games allows you to force them into corners, cut off their expansion, and direct their development in ways that give you decided advantage in the early turns.

I enjoy the element of randomness that is present in the game through the "roll" mechanic when taking territories, and it is a testament to good design that the gameplay type most frequently seen in games is Attrition, which allows for soft loss of territory and a more-than reasonable opportunity to recover from random setbacks. However, the unaccounted for advantage of going first allows for too great an advantage throughout the early turns - it is tantamount to saying that for the first six or so rounds, everyone who goes later in the turn will get a penalty applied on their rolls. Normally, this would be offset by the ability of later players to respond to their opponents, but the early game growth curve is too grim and implacable a force in this instance.

Now, at this point, I have spent a great deal of time complaining and very little actually providing a potential solution, so allow me to now present my proposed solution (though honestly, any solution which addresses this discrepancy would be appreciated - it doesn't have to be mine): Have the army placement phase happen after everyone has gone. That would mean in a four person game, Red, Blue, Yellow, and Green would all expand, and then, in a second round, Red, Blue, Yellow, and then Green would place their armies. This has the disadvantage of introducing a set of turns in each round, but addresses the "get their first" problem by making the earlier players more vulnerable in the interim, while still allowing you to maintain the normal turn rotation, thus preventing programming complexities, double turns, and other such problems created by reversing the turn order.

Of course, this solution still has it's flaws, but I would like to see at the very least some discussion about the whole "Red Advantage" this game gives in the early turns.

[Darkas]

Yeah I know, not being 1st sucks

Your proposition is not that bad, but of very little effect and only works on manual placement style of game.

Other propositions are:
- Reverse turn order in turn 2 (no way, rejected)
- Give a shard/xp bonus (like the premium bonus, a multiplier) to last players
- Give a temp. defensive only bonus which fade over time.
- Do a smart supply minus to the first player, which affect them in turn 2 (3 units instead of 4) or 3 (one unit less if supply is 7 or 8). These are example numbers.
- Some other proposition that I don't have in mind.

[iblob]

I think the advantage is actually the fact that red or blue has 1 extra turn's worth of units to place so on say yellows turn he/she has to defeat an extra turns worth of units so this seprate phases (attack and place) should work.
Support.

[Darkas]

And he can choose a nice starting location. He also get the initiative for battle, and...

The first player(s) is(are) vastly advantaged. The question is: fatality? Or can we do something about it.

I still recommend instead of changing mechanism, a reward for last players based on their performance in the game

[AnCarver]

Yeah I know, not being 1st sucks

Your proposition is not that bad, but of very little effect and only works on manual placement style of game.

Other propositions are:
- Reverse turn order in turn 2 (no way, rejected)
- Give a shard/xp bonus (like the premium bonus, a multiplier) to last players
- Give a temp. defensive only bonus which fade over time.
- Do a smart supply minus to the first player, which affect them in turn 2 (3 units instead of 4) or 3 (one unit less if supply is 7 or 8). These are example numbers.
- Some other proposition that I don't have in mind.

I would think it would work in Borders and Random placement too, as the units phase would not happen until after each player had recieved a chance to attack. The interesting thing about this, I think, is that it would force players to be cautious about not over-extending themselves. In addition, because later players will never have more total troops that earlier players, assuming everyone expands to the maximum potential possible, the issue of red blocking off an area with a five when all Green or Yellow could muster is a three isn't going to come up. Instead, it will be red worrying about whether he should attack the green three now, or expand, and possibly lose the territory on Green's turn.

The change I am suggesting would be a pretty major gameplay shift. My fear is that it is too great of one, in fact - the complete rewrite of how the turn order goes is a pretty big deal. However, it would end up feeling a lot better than a system where early and later players are treated differently.

For example:
With the defensive bonuses scenario, you will have a lot of players being even more frustrated about their turn order, with complaints about people taking advantage of temp bonuses in exactly the same way to block areas and prevent access.
With the "Smart Supply" option, the issue at hand here is unit numbers and fix complexity. Smart supply or other similar options would destroy Red and other early-turn player's ability to expand at the same rate, which, that early in the game, can prove a decisive advantage. At the same time, figuring out the exact numbers for each game depending on player size would be a huge nightmare, especially because if you overcompensate, it could give later players the numbers advantage mentioned above, say, when Red and Teal ended up next to one another in the early turns.
The XP or Shard bonus makes little sense to me, as the issue is a gameplay mechanic, rather than a rewards mechanic. The goal of the fix would be to give all the players a more even chance of winning. As Shards do not compensate in game for later turn placement, they don't address the actual problem. Finally, they would be worthless to Guest players or players who choose not to purchase coins.

Ultimately, if I could hear some input on whether this change is too big to ever be implemented, or even whether the issue will be addressed, I would appreciate it. It's not all that important to me that any specific fix be enacted, but rather, what I see as a large balance issue be addressed.

[Bounty42]

I honestly don't see it. Sure first player has a chance to get a better placement, but they still have to be able to take advantage of it. I've seen good players win, regardless of where they're seeded, consistently. Sure, a mid-level player might do better if he gets an advantage, but any way you slice it someone gets an advantage.

[Darkas]

I wasn't promoting the possibilities, just listing them =)

I previously missed your point, but I figure it out now.

Even if the first player will still have the advantage of the first placement and the initiative (aka choose to attack or not, if you defend you cannot :P), I think your proposition would make a great deal of balance out here.

BUT, as you stated it, it would be a really huge shift in the game mechanism, not that much implementation-wise, but gameplay-wise.
Therefore, I believe it should be a setting (aka game option).

I +1 your proposition.

[AnCarver]

That would be a great compromise. Making it into a setting allows people to choose between it and the old method, and allows those who care deeply about it (a.k.a. me) to exclusively play in that setting. The only trick now is convincing Lopdo that he wants to implement it.

Oh Mighty Lopdo! Bless us with your presence! We have created this offering in the hope that it might please you! Might you, in your infinite wisdom, reveal to us whether it does please you or not?

(Do you think I was worshipful enough? Maybe I should throw in more groveling...)

[Matti5]

- Give a shard/xp bonus (like the premium bonus, a multiplier) to last players
- Give a temp. defensive only bonus which fade over time.

these 2 options could work

[techgump]

I stopped playing conquer due to this. Full map changes the playing field, and makes starting positions irregardless. In fact, I prefer to go later in order with full map. Most of the more seasoned players use this mode as well to offset start position advantage.